Audette et al v. Housing Urban Development et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Exception to Section 8 HUD Housing Choice Voucher Program; denying as moot 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; adopting 7 Report and Recommendations; finding as moot 9 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 5/31/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
________________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
TIVERTON HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________)
RICHARD W. AUDETTE, et al.,

C.A. No. 17-133 S

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiffs’ Motion for Exception
to Section 8 HUD Housing Choice Voucher Program (ECF No. 2) and
Motion

to

Appoint

Counsel

(ECF

No.

3).

These

matters

were

referred to Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond for report and
recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Magistrate
Judge Almond reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint and recommends that
the

case

be

dismissed

because,

among

other

reasons,

it

is

“frivolous” and “fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.”

(R&R

1,

ECF

No.

7

(quoting

28

U.S.C.

§

1915(e)(2)(b)).)
Plaintiffs

objected

to

the

Report

and

Recommendation.

(Pl.’s Obj., ECF No. 10.) However, not only was the Objection
untimely, but it also contains no substantive argument. Instead,

the Objection contains a request that this Court “compel Mr.
Almond to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we have committed
frivolous

acts”

and

“malicious

acts.”

(Id.)

Beyond

the

insufficiency of this Objection, the Court has also reviewed the
substance
636(b)(1)

of

Plaintiffs’

and

concurs

Complaint
with

pursuant

to

Magistrate

28

Judge

U.S.C.

§

Almond’s

recommendation.
The

Report

ACCEPTED.
Housing

and

Plaintiffs’

Choice

Recommendation
Motion

Voucher

for

Program

(ECF

No.

Exception
(ECF

No.

7)
to

2)

is

therefore

Section
is

8

HUD

DENIED

and

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED AS
MOOT. Judgment will enter for Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Rhode Island
Date: May 31, 2017

2